A  GOLDEN  RULE 

(COMMON  SENSE) 


ADDRESS  DELIVERED  BY 


Fred  Kohler,  Chief  of  Police 

OF 

CLEVELAND,  OHIO 

AT  CONVENTION  OF 


INTERNATIONAL  ASSOCIATION 
OF  CHIEFS  OF  POLICE. 


Address  discussed;  accepted  and  ordered  printed 
in  convention  held  at  Detroit,  Michigan, 
June  3rd,  1908. 


\ 


i 


INTERNATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  CHIEFS  OF  POLICE. 

“A  Golden  Rule.” 

(By  Fred  Kohler,  Chief  of  Police,  Cleveland,  Ohio.) 

Mr.  President,  Brother  Chiefs,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen : 


For  a  great  many  years  in  Cleveland,  practically  always,  cer- 
#  tainly  throughout  the  period  of  my  service  on  the  force,  the  police 
^  had  done  as  the  police  do  everywhere  with  drunks  and  disorderly 
|sj  persons,  petty  thieves,  bad  boys  and  small  offenders  generally,  we 
^  ran  them  in.  It  was  the  custom  in  Cleveland;  it  is  still  the  custom 
of  practically  the  whole  police  world,  and  customs — ground  as  they 
are  into  the  very  fibre  of  men’s  minds — are  hard  to  break.  But  we 
have  broken  the  custom  of  the  world  and  the  ages  in  Cleveland. 
We  are  treating  men  as  men;  even  when  they  are  drunk;  even 
when  they  disturb  the  peace;  even  when  they  insult  the  dignity  of 
a  policeman.  We  often  make  arrests,  but  even  then  we  deal  with 
our  prisoners  as  citizens;  as  human  beings.  And  we  all  like  the 
change ;  not  only  the  offenders,  but  the  police.  It  works,  humanity 
does — the  results  of  our  so-called  Golden  Rule  Policy  are  good. 

For  many  years  I  have  given  confused  study  and  some  not  very 
enlightening  observation  to  the  numerous  arrests  made  for  minor 
offenses.  I  couldn’t  see  that  these  wholesale  arrests  did  any  good. 
The  number  of  them  did  not  diminish;  it  increased.  And  I  found 
that  the  arrests  not  only  did  not  produce  good  results;  they  did 
harm.  They  brought  disgrace,  humiliation  and  suffering  to  count¬ 
less  innocent  persons  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  acts  of  a  thought¬ 
less,  careless,  mischievous,  or  even  if  you  will,  a  malicious  first  of- 


3 


fender.  Think  a  moment,  and  you  will  see  out  of  your  own  expe¬ 
rience  how  true  this  is.  Certainly  it  was  borne  in  upon  me,  that 
something  was  wrong. 

I  found  daily  at  these  stations  relatives  and  friends  in  tears 
seeking  the  release  of  some  prisoner,  who,  when  I  inquired,  proved 
to  be  not  so  very,  very  bad.  In  Police  Court  the  next  day  I  saw  old 
and  feeble  parents,  weeping  wives  with  crying  babies  in  their  arms, 
and  very  often  other  children  clinging  at  their  sides — all  there  to 
witness  the  degradation  of  those  they  loved.  And  what  was  the 
result?  A  hasty  trial,  and  since  the  offense  was  usually  trivial,  the 
prisoner  was  discharged.  Good!  But  all  that  suffering  was  in 
vain.  Sbmetimes  it  was  worse  than  vain.  Sometimes  a  friend  inter¬ 
ceded  in  the  prisoner’s  behalf  and  he  was  released.  Perhaps  a  lesson 
in  ‘‘pull”.  Perhaps  the  prisoner  and  his  friends  perjured  themselves 
—you  know  how  often  that  happens — and  a  greater  crime  was  com¬ 
mitted.  Again  sometimes  the  offender  was  fined.  That  was  “a 
result,”  but  who  paid?  The  weeping  mother  and  children;  they 
were  robbed  of  the  necessities  of  life  and  the  only  gain  was  a  few 
paltry  dollars  paid  into  the  City  Treasury.  Was  there  one  particle 
of  real  good  accomplished  by  this  process?  Watching  it  all  as  I 
did,  day  after  day,  I  answer  “no”,  and  I  say  now  emphatically,  “no.” 

Now,  questioning  these  unfortunates,  it  struck  me  that  most  of 
them  did  what  they  did  through  thoughtlessness,  natural  passion, 
or  in  a  spirit  of  frolic  or  mischief.  It  seemed  to  me  that  this  should 
be  understood.  It  didn’t  seem  at  first  to  be  the  policeman’s  duty  to 
study  the  cases  and  to  use  discretion.  That  was  the  judge’s  part. 
But  following  the  cases  from  the  time  the  persons  were  thrown  into 
prison  to  their  arraignment  before  a  Police  Magistrate,  I  noticed 
that,  as  a  rule,  the  bench  showed  little  sense  of  the  character,  and 
less  knowledge  of  the  habits  and  environment  of  the  offender.  The 
judge  has  not,  of  course,  seen  the  offense  committed,  and  he  couldn’t 
comprehend  the  exact  situation  or  the  conditions.  Or  perhaps  he 


4 


was  a  politician ;  in  that  case  the  arresting  policeman  was  the  person 
put  on  trial,  censured  and  insulted.  There  was  a  misunderstanding 
all  around.  And  gentlemen,  misunderstanding  is  injustice. 

The  ‘Very  best  result''  achieved  in  all  this  process  was  that  the 
offender,  who  may  previously  have  been  of  good  character  and 
reputation,  was  given  a  police  court  record.  He  was  discouraged 
and  his  family  and  relatives  mortified  and  disgraced. 

Then  I  remembered  that  all  persons  are  not  arrested  who  com¬ 
mit  minor  offenses  and  even  larceny.  Many  escape  detection  and 
are  not  exposed.  Their  escape  did  not  hurt  them  or  society;  it  was 
an  advantage. 

I  know,  and  you  know,  men  who  have  erred  thus  in  youth,  and 
yet  later  have  become  good  citizens ;  yes,  some  of  them  are  the  lead¬ 
ing  business  men  of  the  country.  Some  of  them  are  Chiefs  of  Police. 
As  we  all  know  with  some  crime  is  a  disease;  with  others  it  is  a 
lack  of  proper  education,  training  and  healthy  environment;  and 
with  yet  others,  it  is  weakness — inability  to  resist  temptation.  Now, 
I  finally  concluded,  that  it  was  our  duty  not  to  help  these  unfortu¬ 
nates  on  their  downward  course,  but  to  save  them.  It  seemed  to  me 
it  was  up  to  the  police  to  learn  to  know  the  difference  between  a 
thief  and  a  mischievous  man  or  boy.  And  why  not?  Of  all  men, 
who  is  so  able  to  judge  whether  an  arrest  is  necessary  as  the  police¬ 
man,  if  given  the  opportunity,  who  knows  the  neighborhood,  who  is 
first  on  the  scene,  who  has  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  at  first 
hand — before  there  has  been  time  to  destroy  or  make  up  evidence. 

Upon  these  observations  and  thoughts  my  policy  was  formed. 
Firm  in  the  belief  that  some  remedy  was  necessary,  I  decided  to  ex¬ 
periment.  I  determined  to  have  my  policemen  use  their  best  human 
instincts.  I  proposed  that  my  men  should  exercise  that  discretion 
which  the  judges  did  not  always  exercise. 

To  insure  the  successful  operation  of  the  plan,  it  was  necessary 
of  course,  that  every  member  of  the  force  should  understand  it. 


They  must  be  made  aware  of  the  principle  involved  and  the  benefits 
to  be  derived  from  the  policy.  To  that  end  I  personally  met  with 
every  division  of  the  officers  and  men  and,  in  an  informal  discussion 
considered  with  them  every  detail.  Every  misdemeanor  and  crime 
was  carefully  dissected  and  we  decided  together  just  how  far  the 
policy  was  to  be  applied. 

First:  Juveniles  were  never  to  be  placed  in  city  prisons.  They 
were  to  be  taken  home  or  the  parents  sent  for  and  the  child  turned 
over  to  them  with  a  warning  for  parental  correction. 

Second :  Intoxicated  persons  were  to  be  taken,  or  sent  home, 
unless  it  seemed  necessary  for  the  protection  of  their  lives  or  their 
property,  to  confine  them  until  sober,  and  in  that  case  they  were  to 
be  allowed  to  plead  guilty  and,  by  signing  a  waiver  of  trial,  let  go 
without  appearing  in  court.  And  for  your  information  I  might  add, 
that  under  this  system  of  so-called  Sunrise  Court,  during  the  year  of 
1907  there  were  7738  persons  released  by  signing  such  a  waiver 
without  any  further  punishment. 

Third:  Juvenile  and  intoxicated  persons  are  cited  only  because 
they  appear  to  be  in  the  majority,  but  apparent  offenders  of  any  mis¬ 
demeanor  charges  are  warned  and  released  by  simply  taking  their 
name  and  address,  unless,  it  can  be  shown  that  the  offense  was  com¬ 
mitted  with  malice  and  forethought;  with  the  intention  to  injure 
the  person  or  property  of  another.  And  I  might  add,  that  this  policy 
has  also  been  applied  even  where  it  seemed  apparent  felonies  had 
been  committed. 

The  force  was  shown  how  by  conscientiously  carrying  out  this 

policy,  they  would  save  many  hours’  duty  in  court,  a  matter  of  great 
importance  to  the  officers  on  night  duty,  and  to  the  public  when 
officers  are  on  day  duty.  They  would  save  to  the  city  thousands  of 

dollars  in  witness  fees;  much  work  for  the  police  judges,  police 
clerks  and  court  attaches;  wear  and  tear  of  all  police  apparatus. 

And  they  would  cut  politicians  and  shyster  lawyers  out  of  their 

6 


source  of  revenue,  and  drive  them  back  to  good,  honest  work — 
maybe. 

The  force  became  thoroughly  interested,  and,  though  there  were 
a  few  mistakes  to  correct  at  first,  the  policy  has  proved  a  success 
during  the  five  months  of  severe  trial  which  we  have  given  it. 

To  show  this  I  quote  from  our  reports  the  number  of  arrests  for 
the  first  five  months  of  1907  and  1908 : 

January,  1907,  2158;  January,  1908,  911;  February,  1907,  2257; 
February,  1908,  829;  March,  1907,  2711;  March,  1908,  939;  April, 
1907,  2434;  April,  1908,  907;  May,  1907,  2731 ;  May,  1908,  888. 

These  figures  show  that  arrests  have  decreased  68  per  cent. 

Reports  and  complaints  have  diminished  at  a  corresponding 
rate.  Officers,  detectives  and  patrolmen  are  able  to  devote  more 
time  to  the  pursuit  of  the  habitual  criminal  and  crimes  of  a  serious 
nature ;  to  suspicious  persons  and  to  those  whose  livelihood  depends 
upon  the  swindling  and  robbing  of  the  honest  citizen.  This  in  turn 
has  resulted  in  driving  from  our  city  practically  all  these  vultures, 
and  those  that  remain  are  under  such  close  surveillance  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  for  them  to  operate  successfully.  I  think  I  can 
truthfully  say  that  Cleveland  is  well  pleased  with  the  result. 

I  believe  in  my  policy.  I  believe  that  if  it  is  properly  and  gen¬ 
erally  carried  into  effect,  it  will  put  the  American  policeman  in  the 
position  he  should  occupy.  He  will  learn  that  the  people  he  has  to 
deal  with  are  human  beings,  not  machines ;  liable  to  make  mistakes 
and  failures,  but  not  therefore  lost  souls.  And  I  believe  that  the 
patrolman  should  be  the  friend  and  parole  officer  of  these  laggards. 
I  believe  that  the  best  policeman  is  he  who  manages  all  offenders 
against  the  law  with  the  least  show  of  authority,  with  the  least  per¬ 
sonal  pride,  with  the  greatest  sense  of  human  justice. 

At  our  last  meeting  I  described  to  you  our  policy  of  “Police 
Repression,’^  and  I  explained  that  the  purpose  of  it  was  to  prevent 
violations  of  the  law  instead  of  waiting  for  them  to  occur.  That 


3  0112  098432963 


policy  in  connection  with  this,  the  “Golden  Rule  Policy”  has  really 
made  Cleveland  a  good  city  to  live  in. 

And,  to  take  a  broad  view,  I  submit  that  we  police  can  help  to 
make  the  world  a  better  place  to  live  in.  It  has  been  said,  and  you, 
gentlemen,  with  your  long  experience  in  police  business,  you  know 
that  the  police,  unwillingly  and  unwittingly,  perhaps  we  neverthe¬ 
less  hasty — have  been  instrumental  in  making  as  many  criminals  as 
any  other  agency,  poverty,  heritage  and  association  excepted. 

This  we  have  done  by  making  these  numerous  arrests  of  first 
offenders;  by  exposing  and  branding  them  with  Police  Court  and 


Prison  records. 

We  have  discouraged  men.  We  have  driven  young  and  weak 


men  to  the  haunts  and  association  of  habitual  and  expert  criminals 
who  have  taught  them  the  ideals  and  practices  of  crime.  We  have 
punished,  we  have  NOT  PREVENTED  CRIME.  The  time  has 
come  to  change  all  this  and  I  believe  we  in  Cleveland  have  found 
the  way  to  do  it. 

y  FRED  KOHLER, 

Chief  of  Police. 


